|
|
Re: Matsuoka classical
Posted by rio on Sat, 12/18/04 - 13:49:18.
: Previously owned a 1970's Matusoka #40 and kept it for thirty years. Learned a lot of classical repetoire with it. Was a good instrument and I played the hell out of it. The cedar top peaked at about 12 years, and the frets in the first to fifth position became quite worn. The sound got softer, mellower thereafter. If I had kept it, a re-fret and neck job would have been in order. Recently saw an old Matsuoka #60 in Japan. Beautiful back/sides and cedar top. The guitar looked like it had been stored in its case. However, the sound was lousy, and the guitar way overpriced. I think old Matsuoka guitars were definitely well-made. But I think it's a valid arguement that some of the best Japanese classicals were made by Masaru Kohno. I have played a 1969 Kohno and some of Masaki Sakurai's intruments which are superb. It's interesting how we value certain instruments huh?
Follow up: the old Matsuoka #60 I mentioned was from 1970. My #40 as mentioned had bigger bass tones and brighter treble tones. Interestingly, the #60 was supposed to be a better, more expensive model, but the one I played was not exceptional. While in I Japan, I bought a new Matsuoka Aranuez 710 "Damman" copy. I also tried a new Matsuoka #100 but it was no match for the 710. Overall, the 710 has much more overtones and complexity compared to the old Matsuoka sound. I think luthier Robert Brune's comments that old Matsuoka's have no collector's value is plausible. Enough for the soapbox today.
Re: Matsuoka classical
: I have had my M40 since 1979 and i paid NZD310 for it.
I have no intetion of repalcing it - it is still in mint condition and had needed no re-fretting so far. Classical players that have tried have commented on it's mellow tone.
Post new comment